Said the moralist, “Pay attention to me! Hey, you! Come back here! Pay attention to meeeeeeee!”
Do you have a job? You’re a means to an end. Did you have kids? You’re a means to an end. Do your parents get a tax deduction for you? You’re a means to an end. Do any or all of these things define the sum total of your humanity? Of course not. The very idea that a child conceived to provide life-saving stem cells for her sibling is somehow diminished as a human being is preposterous. Shall I believe that the child born because a condom broke is more or less worthy than a child born to save her sister’s life, because the accidental child’s existence isn’t dependent on human agency? The professional moralists in this article speak, and all I hear is, “You, stop making your own decisions. Read this book, and do what it says.”
The problem for the moralists in the article, I think, is that our understanding of life and humanity is different now than it was when their rules were written, and they lack the tools to address it. Only once in the entire article does anyone even mention the practical ramifications of hasty applications of technology (C. Ben Mitchell in the fourth paragraph from the bottom), and by the end of the paragraph he’s back to talking about some fuzzily-conceived “moral anemia.” Their arguments lack utility because they lack definition.
I agree with ren that the more pressing issue is not one of morals but of ignorance. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, certainly. The solution is not to retreat from that knowledge, but to continually expand upon it, to create a more precise context.
Sorry if this post was a bit long. I may have to amend my position after a good night’s sleep (Hey! Who’re you to say what’s “good,” ya dinosaur?), but for now, those are my thoughts.
moral \Mor"al, n. 1. The doctrine or practice of the duties of life; manner of living as regards right and wrong; conduct; behavior; – usually in the plural.
eth·ic (thk)
n.
a.A set of principles of right conduct.
b.A theory or a system of moral values:
2.ethics. (used with a sing. verb)The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3.ethics. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.
This issue is tied very closely to people’s views on abortion where there is no small disagreement on the determination of life.
There will be a great many people on both sides of this issue with disparate morals; those who consider the embryo or unborn human a life and those who would see that embryo as merely usable genetic material. Any arguements for or against abortion could be inserted here.
There are long term ramifications to this issue and one must ask where this will stop. Will we one day have body banks where humans are grown to supply spare parts to the priviledged that can afford them?
At every point of recorded human history where significant technological, philosophical and/or scientific advances have been made there has been a group of (usually religiously zealous) moralist standing by ready to beat down the given advances with the good book firmly in hand. At every point on the human historical continuum there has been loud and vehement opposition to cultural and sociological changes because they were deemed to be the ultimate and final downfall of humanity.
Despite all the negative press by these groups, who seem to claim themselves as being ultimate authorities in morality and ethics, said advances have on the whole benefited society and humanity. Not only that, the very same groups who screamed their moral outrage at anyone within hearing distance have continued to prospered largely due to those same advances they so strongly opposed.
I understand and appreciate the checks and balances that every healthy civilization requires in order to grow and prosper. I understand that morality and ethics are important to human survival. But they are not the only things that are essencial to human survival. Treating scientists as if they were somehow a-moral, immoral or entirely removed from the human ethical sphere seems (to me) to be intellectually dishonest. As intellectually dishonest as pretending that human being are not forced to make life and death decisions that will maximize or benefit those who either have the greatest chance of survival or simply are of subjectively higher value to the person making the decision.
The Torah is a wonderful document chronicling 3,500 years of human development. It is deep and broad in the wisdoms it brings to us in the 21st century. But what it also illustrates very clearly is that in all this time (and probably longer) we humans continue to struggle with the same concepts of morality/ethics, life and death and justice. We still weigh the needs of one against the needs of another or the many. We are still entrenched in the very dilema that has plagued humanity through the ages. Do the ends justify the means? To a greater or lesser degree throughout history, the answer has always been - Yes. Sacrifices are made (willingly, or sadly, involuntarily) to reach a desired goal. Once reached, the martyrs become saints and heroes and in very special cases they are remembered by our briefly recorded history. Most sacrifices are washed from our memories like they never existed.
My point (and I do have one!) is that maintaining a culturally subjective morality and set of ethics is right and good when those rules exist to guide society to maximize the individual’s chances to live a happy, healthy and fruitful life. Restricting an individual’s thoughts and efforts by that same set of rules when he/she/they is/are working (within established legal limits) to benefit the given society is IMHO not such a good thing.
I don’t know if this will ever stop. Does it have to?
There have always been and likely always will be the more and less priviledged. The priviledged already have access to better and more timely medical care. Why is that likely to change in the future? One must remember that all advances (medical and otherwise) eventually end up benefitting all of society, not just the priviledged. It’s a fallacy to insist that ultimately only the rich will benefit from said body parts banks. Perhaps in the very short term this is so but it will not always be thus.
C. Ben Mitchell, professor of bioethics and contemporary culture at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois: “We’re facing a future when we’re talking about computers having emotion and being able to think, and granting computers personhood, but not embryos.”
I’d like to see a cite for that statement.
Mitchell: “(Nationally) we might decide to store cord blood, but to bring a child into the world for that purpose is bringing it in as a means to an end.”
Apparently he doesn’t understand bio-science as well as he thinks he understands bioethics. A national reserve of cord blood would not have saved the life of that little girl.
Thea Logica: “…the decline in religious beliefs has greatly contributed to the decline in both morals and ethics.”
I disagree. I’m anti-religion and do not lack ethics or morality. I think the real problem is religion’s failure at defining and promoting E&M. Instead of realistic discussions of what is important in our daily lives, religion offers goat fel…er…herder stories. That’s very appropriate, not! Satan said, “…more Americans attend church regularly than ever before…” More people defining themselves by and subscribing themselves to Religion + We all agree that there is a decline in E&M = Religion has lost its usefullness and/or it’s not fullfilling what most people assume to be its major goal.
I’d like to get a concensus from the anti-science camp about what their idea of these embryoes look like. So can anyone please describe what you think we’re talking about here? Nothing vague like “a human life”, but in a concrete there-it-is kind of pointing-at-it kind of way.
*Genetic testing of embryos […] to choose the sex of a baby ignores centuries of discourse about who counts as a person and ethicists believe further erodes traditional views of how human beings ought to treat each other. *
I’m flabbergasted that anyone could have written that with a straight face. As though “centuries of discourse about who counts as a person” and “traditional views of how human beings ought to treat each other” never displayed some ethically questionable biases on the basis of sex! How about that fine old ethical tradition of female infanticide, for instance?
I’m with spooje on this one: viewing past “centuries of discourse” and “traditional views” as ethically superior to our own requires a very selective memory. I am not saying that modern scientific developments don’t have some ethically questionable implications, but the idea that they represent a falling-off from higher ethical standards of the past is laughable, IMO.